MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133105055 · doi:10.1177/0164027521994225

The Older, the Happier?: A Cross-Sectional Study on the “Paradox of Aging” in China

2021· article· en· W3133105055 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessPsychologyChinaAssociation (psychology)Life satisfactionRural areaSuccessful agingSubjective well-beingGerontologyCross-sectional studyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyDemographyMedicineGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "paradox of aging" refers to the phenomenon that even though people's physical health and functions may decline when they enter later adulthood, their happiness does not necessarily. Previous studies have shown that older adults' better emotional regulation skills may contribute to the maintenance of their happiness. This study aims to examine the relationship between age, health, and happiness, and the moderating role of emotional stability. We adopted a nationally representative sample (n = 10,968) from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and performed weight-adjusted regression models with interaction terms. There is generally an S-shaped age-happiness relationship with significant urban-rural differences. Emotional stability buffers the negative association between health and happiness, and this moderating effect was stronger among older than younger adults, especially in rural China. This study calls for special attention paid to the oldest-old population in rural China and older adults' emotional regulation skills.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it